On 18 April 2012 20:39, jvdh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 18, 2:37 am, Lex Trotman <[email protected]> wrote: >> [...] >> >> >> Unfortunately, yes the command (and especially the html_file and >> >> text_file which you also un-quoted) can contain spaces especially if >> >> they have a path. For instance think "Program Files" on Windows and >> >> user directories which often contain spaces in their paths. >> >> > yes, that's right. but w.r.t. the browser itself probably not so much: >> > the text-based browsers I know of have sure >> > no blanks in there names (w3m, lynx, links, elinks). so maybe the >> > quoting fo the browser variables could still go away? >> > it would make life a bit easier by allowing to include fixed options >> > in `a2x.conf'. >> >> Hi Joerg, >> > > hi lex, > >> If I am specifying the browser name it is probably because it is >> installed somewhere non-standard and I have to specify the *path* >> which could possibly have spaces in it. > > I admit it could happen, though I would argue for having the > executables on the calling shell's search path
Of course, but why *prevent* something just because you or I would call it unlikely :) (my reason for > specifying the browser actually was different: the different browsers > produce slightly different `.text' approximations of the html and I > was not really happy with the `w3m' output so I wanted to use a > different one). and it's not a real problem, of course, if your patch > regarding passing options via the a2x command line to the respective > browser finds its way into the next release. still, I feel it would be > somehow nicer to be able to specify fixed options (for instance, > fixing the width always to 80 chars or similar) in the definition of > LYNX and W3M instead of specifying them in each and every `a2x' call. But with the patch you can specify a base set of LYNX_OPTS in a2x.conf and any command line ones are added, you don't need to include them in the LYNX command variable. Cheers Lex > but I understand this would require parsing the defining strings to > separate the `path_to_browser_executable' (possibly including blanks) > from the options. but admittedly it's really a "nano-issue" (if not a > non-issue) and maybe not worth the effort to do so. > > best regards, > > joerg > >> >> Cheers >> Lex >> >> > best regards, >> > joerg > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "asciidoc" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
